The Supreme Court has held that investigation of a criminal offence falls within the exclusive domain of the police and a court cannot decide when an investigation should stop merely by relying on an isolated statement made by the prosecution. A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar set aside a Bombay High Court judgment granting default bail to an accused in a UAPA case and restored an order giving the prosecution a further 15 days to file the chargesheet.
The Court held that the High Court had wrongly treated a statement in the prosecution’s application that there was enough evidence to file a chargesheet as proof that the investigation had already been completed. It said the application had to be read as a whole, particularly when the prosecution had specifically stated that analysis of electronic evidence, bank transactions and other material was still underway.
The appeal was filed by the State of Maharashtra and the Anti-Terrorism Squad against the Bombay High Court’s July 15, 2024 judgment in favour of Momin Moiuddin Gulam Hasan alias Moin Mistri and another accused.
Background
An FIR was registered by the Mumbai ATS on September 21, 2022 against several persons for alleged offences under Sections 120B, 121A and 153A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
The respondents were arrested on September 22, 2022. After being initially placed in police custody, they were remanded to judicial custody.
As the 90-day period for completing the investigation approached, the Special Judge granted the prosecution a first extension of 30 days from December 20, 2022. A second application seeking another 15 days was allowed on January 18, 2023.
The accused subsequently sought default bail. Their application dated January 20, 2023 was rejected by the Special Judge. A chargesheet was eventually filed on February 2, 2023.
The Bombay High Court later held that the second extension was illegal. It concluded that the investigation had already been completed and that an extension could not be granted merely because sanction under Section 45 of the UAPA was awaited.
The High Court consequently held that an indefeasible right to default bail had accrued to the accused and directed their release.
Supreme Court Examines Scope of Investigation
The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court’s approach and said that investigation of a crime is primarily within the statutory domain of the police.
The bench observed:
“The investigation of a crime is the exclusive domain of the police. It is not the jurisdiction of the Court to decide when the investigation in a case should stop.”
The Court said the investigating agency must ordinarily be allowed to determine the course and manner of investigation. Judicial interference with that statutory power would be justified only in exceptional circumstances or where the law itself bars further investigation.
Referring to The King Emperor v. Khawaja Nazir Ahmad and State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha, the Court reiterated that courts cannot interfere with the statutory right of police to investigate a cognizable offence in the ordinary course.
Single Sentence Cannot Be Read Out of Context
A central issue before the Supreme Court was the prosecution’s statement in its second extension application that there was sufficient evidence to file a chargesheet.
The Bombay High Court had relied on that statement to conclude that the investigation was complete.
Rejecting this reasoning, the Supreme Court said:
“A sentence in an order or a judgment cannot be lifted out of its context and interpreted in a manner that defeats the logic behind the decision by the Court. A document has to be read as a whole and not in piecemeal.”
The Court found that the prosecution had never stated that its investigation was fully complete and that filing of the chargesheet was being withheld only because sanction was awaited.
According to the judgment, saying that sufficient material existed for filing a chargesheet could not be equated with saying that no further investigation remained.
The bench observed that such an isolated statement could not be used to curtail the ATS’s power to complete its investigation or conduct further investigation.
Electronic Evidence and Bank Transactions Were Still Being Analysed
The Supreme Court noted that the prosecution’s second application had referred to voice samples sent for forensic verification, scrutiny of bank accounts, analysis of electronic evidence and collection of further material.
The investigating agency had also stated that analysis and collation of information, witness statements, bank records and electronic evidence required additional time.
The Court noted that electronic devices including mobile phones, laptops, pen drives, tablets and hard disks had been seized during the investigation. The prosecution’s case was that forensic material had to be analysed to ascertain its connection with the alleged activities under investigation.
The bench held that analysis of material retrieved from forensic examination formed part of the investigation itself.
“The analysis of data retrieved from the Forensic Laboratory is a part of the investigation and cannot be done after filing of the charge sheet.”
The Court also said that the investigating agency was required to explain in its chargesheet how material relating to bank transactions and electronic evidence connected the accused with the allegations.
Complete Chargesheet Not a Mere Formality
The Supreme Court stressed that filing a complete chargesheet is not a mere procedural formality.
It noted that sanction for prosecution depends upon the material collected during investigation and that the sanctioning authority is required to independently apply its mind before granting sanction.
The Court said the prosecution had specifically pleaded that further time was required to analyse scientific data and prepare a complete report.
On those facts, the bench found it untenable to hold that the ATS investigation had already been completed in every respect.
High Court Went ‘Off-Route’
The Supreme Court held that the Bombay High Court had focused on an issue that was not central to determining whether the second extension granted to the prosecution was lawful.
The bench observed that the High Court’s discussion on sanction for prosecution proceeded on the assumption that the investigation was already complete and the chargesheet was ready for filing.
The Court said:
“The entire discussion on sanction for prosecution was off-route. The High Court took a detour bypassing the gist of the prosecution’s case for extension of time to file the charge sheet.”
It therefore held that the High Court’s interference with the January 18, 2023 order granting a second extension of 15 days was erroneous.
Default Bail Order Set Aside
Allowing Maharashtra’s appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court’s July 15, 2024 judgment.
The Court restored the Special Judge’s January 18, 2023 order granting the prosecution a further 15 days to file the chargesheet and held that order to be legal and valid.
Consequently, the accused’s default bail application dated January 20, 2023 was dismissed.
The Court directed respondent No. 1 to surrender within 30 days. It clarified that he could seek regular bail, if so advised.
Case Title: The State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Momin Moiuddin Gulam Hasan @ Moin Mistri & Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 12932 of 2024
Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
Date: September 21, 2026
